Agreed...

(Not sure on the meaning or ending but well done!)

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, September 03, 2018 - 01:54 am: Edit

I obviously lack the emotional and/or intellectual capacity to grasp the film. All I see is a threat to humanity that requires war. The machines cannot be trusted to maintain the peace, there is no telling how many suicide sleepers they have already infiltrated, and waiting just gives them more time to make and infiltrate more. At least 87 humans are dead, one we killed ourselves in the name of maintaining a peace the machines clearly do not intend to honor themselves in the long run.

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Monday, September 03, 2018 - 09:37 am: Edit

Spoiler in white: I immediately thought of Petrick when the order was given to shoot down one of their own who was refusing a direct order and was actively violating a cease fire arraignment. It just seemed like something Petrick would do, too, however reluctantly.

++++++++++++

The same YouTube channel has one called "Bears Discover Fire". Doesn't that title make you want to click on it? It was cute, but I would have done something a little different with the ending.


Garth L. Getgen

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandor) on Monday, September 03, 2018 - 10:46 am: Edit

interesting short film thank you Garth

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Monday, September 03, 2018 - 12:27 pm: Edit

The best hope for humanity is if the machines are not planning on staying.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, September 03, 2018 - 03:59 pm: Edit

Garth L. Getgen:

I do not think the question is whether or not I would give such an order in such circumstances.

The question is whether or not you, or any one else for that matter, on seeing the film and reading these posts, would obey the order.

And how much effect delays caused by hesitation, including my own while I briefly considered whether I had any other valid option, would have.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, September 03, 2018 - 04:01 pm: Edit

A. David Merritt:

Having read Saberhagen ("Berserker" series), I disagree that such is any hope at all.

After all, the surest way to be certain that humanity would not follow the machines when they left is to make sure there is no humanity. And since they are already violating the terms of the peace by seeding the population with sleeper suicide bombers ... it seems obvious to me that if they could leave, they would be certain we "do not follow."

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandor) on Monday, September 03, 2018 - 05:38 pm: Edit

Are is the explosion just a self destruct type of thing?. She exploded when she was dying. The other when the wife left and is life as it was was over for him.

Now mind you it would be better for Man if they just destroyed all the machines. Other wise well.... more War for sure.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, September 03, 2018 - 06:40 pm: Edit

Gregory S. Flusche:

Given the reaction of the people around the first site of detonation, and the apparent knowledge of the searchers, it is quite apparent to me, at least, that such agents had also been used in the war. It is obviously common knowledge.

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Monday, September 03, 2018 - 07:19 pm: Edit

I got the impression that the two we know we saw may have been leftovers trying to go "home". The second definitely appeared to be trying to return to friendly lines.

Either way, given the world's continued reliance on connected devices, humans only survive as long as the machines remain indifferent to humanities destruction.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, September 03, 2018 - 11:38 pm: Edit

I watched "Bears Discover Fire," and all I can say is " I do not get it."

By Michael Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Tuesday, September 04, 2018 - 05:09 am: Edit

The actor running the control center is also the same guy from "Sleeper Cell" which was pretty intense.

Which also reminds me to watch "Fauda" again.

If I can stand another darn binge watching something in Hebrew & Arabic with subtitles.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, September 04, 2018 - 06:08 am: Edit

Michael Grafton:

Oded Fehr has frequently been cast as a Mossad agent.

See "Covert Affairs" if I am correctly remembering the title of the USA series.

There was another series where he appeared regularly as a Mossad agent that I cannot think of the title just now.

I have seen him portraying villains also.

I think I have only seen him as a series regular once, but that series was cancelled fairly quickly (not saying that was any fault of his).

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Tuesday, September 04, 2018 - 10:00 am: Edit

Regarding "Bears", I agree that it could have spelled things out better. I think the weird berries that the bears eat made them smart, and they gave the grandma the strength to get out of her chair and go for her visit.

I would have ended it with her felling much better, to the confusion to all the doctors, but then slowly return to her "normal" state.


Garth L. Getgen

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, September 04, 2018 - 02:47 pm: Edit

Garth L. Getgen:

I got the weird berries thing. I even caught the comment to the effect that "only bears would eat them" near the end, but of course the uncle ate at least one after that statement.

I just do not get the whole story.

There has been (apparently) some biological mutation of a plant that is producing a berry that gives bears some quantum jump forward in intellectual and cultural enhancement. They know how to use fire, and will to some degree socialize with humans without hostility.

That is all I got from it. I get nothing else from it. It comes across as pretty meaningless to me. (As noted, I lack a lot of intellectual, emotional and social advancement, so a great deal of "entertainment" goes over my head and I tend to take more direct views.)

I do not see the bears as a "threat" to humanity that needs to be dealt with for the preservation of my own species, and would allow the bears to advance within their own limits, and see if we could accommodate them in so doing as a species ourselves. But down the road there are obviously going to be conflicts over resources, and it is important to work those out. But while I can see that future conflict as possible, I lack the paranoia to stamp out intelligent bears now because of that possibility. Lets see if we can all work together to share the resources and let the bears continue to evolve. (But if they start trying to eat my cats, all bets are off.)

By Jon Murdock (Xenocide) on Tuesday, September 04, 2018 - 03:28 pm: Edit

Did the bears reach human intelligence or just a lower form of sentience?

Harry Turtledove wrote a series of short stories about Sims (Homo Erectus). Basically he posited that humans never reached the New World but the Sims did. When humans crossed the Atlantic they found the Sims. At first it made colonizing the Americas difficult (no native seed crop and the large predatory fauna was still around from the Pleistocene era survive) and later easier as the Sims could not resist the way Native Americans could. Spain had no local empires to loot so was weaker in the timeline. They quickly used Sims as slaves and it resulted in freeing all other slaves much earlier as there was an obvious "inferior race" to use. Darwinism catches on earlier. Use of Sims as test animals for disease research is controversial but more effective then using conventional animals.

The overall conclusion I think the author was trying to convey is that we are cruel enough to our own species. Give us a useful species we could exploit with less guilt and that is basically unable to fight back and it would be worse.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, September 04, 2018 - 03:31 pm: Edit

A. David Merritt:

As to the two "trying to return home," I would have to disagree.

Any "cease-fire" and peace agreement would have been negotiated to require the machines recall all of their sleeper suicide bombers.

That the war has been over long enough to construct the facilities surrounding "the seam" (that rather large gun platform that was used to destroy the attack craft) says that there has been more than sufficient time for the machines to have recalled them,

The machines obviously have not.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, September 04, 2018 - 04:19 pm: Edit

Jon Murdock:

Not really. That is going on around us even now as there are some pushing for humanity to go "all vegan" and stop eating meat and make life easier for other animals. Basically the same kind of feelings would have developed among some for the Sims. There are, after all, already groups of people (and not just PETA) who are aghast at the use of animals to test drugs for possible human use (before they advance to human trials), and not just monkey are used for that.

It is, however (and honestly) too late for me. I am utterly unwilling to give up my steak, ham, chicken, and turkey.

By Jon Murdock (Xenocide) on Tuesday, September 04, 2018 - 04:33 pm: Edit

Well, the Sims have supporters but ease trumps morality and the writer subtly mocks the morality of the protestors. In one story a Sim is infected with AIDS to help find a cure. Protestors "rescue" him and he has to go into hiding. He is now "free" but cannot go anywhere or do anything because he might get caught.

In captivity he had a mate and now he cannot mate even when the house he is hiding in has a Sim female (to avoid infecting her with AIDS). The food is worse now. Attempts to explain his newfound freedom just confuse him.

Eventually he begins to grow ill from his disease which was being treated while they were testing cures so the rescuers give him back to save his life. The Sim is relieved to go back to good food and his mate and the nice lab.

I personally am okay with using animals for medical and even some safety testing. We are sentient. They are not and I believe human life has more value. There are more wasteful uses like cosmetic testing which I think qualifies as abuse.

The Sims change the equation a bit because they are sentient and self-aware but are incapable of matching a human intellectually. Where does that put them? Ethically, what do you do with them? In the stories closer to modern days they were employed for semi-skilled labor like farming and simple tasks like janitorial duties. Is that exploitation or a fair trade of services for a warm place to live and good food? If it was not a Sim it would be a human the job? Is that somehow more ethical and not exploitation?

It is a strange question.

By Matthew G Lawson (Mglawson) on Tuesday, September 04, 2018 - 05:10 pm: Edit

I just started watching the Netflix "Lost in Space" and am really enjoying it. I loved the old series and so far have like the changes and twists they have done. 5 episodes left and I think it's been renewed for a second season.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, September 04, 2018 - 05:16 pm: Edit

Jon Murdock:

There are always ethical quandries.

There are places that did their level best to ban hunting so that nature would recover, with the result that the animals began starving because there was no check on their numbers. Land became overgrazed.

The sad fact is that that is actually "Nature's Plan." People like to portray nature as "kind," that is to say "Mother Nature." In reality, Nature is harsh, uncaring, and at best absent. Herbivores do not understand that their grazing lands can only support so many of them, and will inevitably continue producing young until the land cannot support them, and even if there is not a famine as a result of conditions beyond their own grazing and population growth (e.g., a drought, or some disease or pest attacking the food stocks) there will be a famine because of their own numbers.

Or as my more preferred comment on how nice Mother Nature is: Mother Nature created a system where if Mother fox catches Mother Rabbit, Mother Rabbit's children will die of starvation, but if Mother Fox does not catch Mother Rabbit, Mother Fox's children will die of starvation.

We, as a species, are theoretically intelligent and have the foresight available to us to plan for the future and prepare for disaster (such as drought or storm). But very few of us as individuals do so, and collectively as societies are often blind to the sheer force that is mother nature. (Look at how many people think nothing of building their homes in a flood plain, or next to an active, much less a dormant, volcano. And how often we resist the warnings of those who are supposed to know that we are at risk of disaster.) I am going to stop now. This is starting to sound like a diatribe.

By Marc Michalik (Kavik_Kang) on Tuesday, September 04, 2018 - 05:34 pm: Edit

"The Sims change the equation a bit because they are sentient and self-aware but are incapable of matching a human intellectually. Where does that put them? Ethically, what do you do with them? In the stories closer to modern days they were employed for semi-skilled labor like farming and simple tasks like janitorial duties. Is that exploitation or a fair trade of services for a warm place to live and good food? If it was not a Sim it would be a human the job? Is that somehow more ethical and not exploitation?"

I don't see any ethical problem here, although I do see opportunity to make it out to be one for those who want to for propaganda purposes against their government.

In just this one example, in this one paragraph, as long as the "intellectually inferior" people are being paid the same as humans would be for their work, and have equal freedom in society... I don't see an ethical problem with the fact that they are working as laborers. What else are they going to do? Theoretical physics? Rocket science? Engineering?

By your description they aren't suited/qualified for those types of jobs. They aren't capable of doing those jobs. It's not discrimination to exclude those who are not qualified.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, September 04, 2018 - 06:27 pm: Edit

In regards the Sims, I fear we need to end this now, without further discussion, as it is literally on the verge of branching off into areas that are closed to discussion.

My apologies, but it is so. No one has crossed the line as of yet, but we are now teetering on it.

By Michael Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Wednesday, September 05, 2018 - 05:11 am: Edit

There is an incredible short film thing about the re-introduction of wolves into Yellowstone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa5OBhXz-Q

And bears are zero threat to man (as opposed to "A man") with tools until they get thumbs and dexterous fingers

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, September 05, 2018 - 10:37 am: Edit

... or telekinesis.